Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 7, 2025 - Viva & Barnes

01:49:48

Frei-Day Law Panel with a Bunch of Lawyers & Another Guy - Trump, Elon, Canada & MORE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	We'll give it one more minute, and then we'll see.
	I just found them.
	They weren't turned on.
	I don't know who turned them off, but...
	Those sons of...
	Okay, here, let's see.
	Okay, we're live on Locals, and we are going to be live then shortly on...
	Everything should start rolling in eventually.
	Okay, good.
	It's done.
	You cursed it.
	You cursed it.
	It's your fault.
	The saboteur in the back.
	I'm joking.
	Yeah, so we'll see if it works.
	I can't make every Friday.
	We are overlapping, but also today I have to be somewhere at 2 o'clock so that it worked out perfectly because I would have to otherwise end my stream a little early.
	And I'm going to cover a lot of the stuff that we're talking about today anyhow.
	All right.
	And again, if you want to see this kind of thing, check out Laidback Law.
	You can see it.
	Search it out.
	Laidback Law.
	Boom. Maybe somebody will drop it in the chats.
	I do appreciate it.
	Ian, before we came on, you were just telling us, well, I was surprised.
	There's still guns that are legal in Canada?
	Yeah, although that list just got a little smaller because they just announced that they're banning effective immediately.
	179 more makes and models, including their variants.
	We don't have the list yet, but so that's going to be fun.
	We're just waiting to see sort of what comes of that, but yeah, it's going to be a massive mess, and this seems like entirely the wrong time, like with tariff threats and so forth.
	It's like, hey, let's spend billions of dollars disarming Canadians.
	It is absolutely mind-boggling, and it really tells you how...
	How unserious the Liberal Party is about all of this stuff.
	It's like, all right, there's a tariff war.
	Let's spend billions on bullshit.
	Or I think it's the perfect time.
	They're going to destroy the Canadian economy and destroy the Canadian people, but disarm them so that they can't revolt after they're done.
	Completing the destruction.
	And I made the joke before we went live, but it will be less fresh now.
	The next thing they're going to ban is making finger guns with your hands.
	That's going to be a step too far.
	At one point, they banned...
	The ban encompassed duck hunting shotguns.
	Oh, I mean, there's all sorts of things on there.
	Some of the guns that they've banned are things like...
	There's one that if you have it...
	The buyback is proposing to pay you like half a million dollars because they're like bespoke safari guns.
	So the company that makes them, everything they make is like engraved with gold inlay and so forth.
	And nobody is robbing a liquor store with a half million dollar gun.
	Because if you have a half million dollar gun, you don't need to rob a liquor store.
	It's... All of this stuff is so idiotic.
	They're banning a whole bunch of makes and models of.22s, which if you know anything about firearms, a.22 is not exactly a big threat.
	They just want to use this essentially to ban more stuff and to divide Canadians and to all of this.
	So the Liberal Party is really a bit of a plague on Canada at this point, and I'm hoping that...
	I'm hoping that they are gone, but that's becoming more and more difficult with sort of the current political situation.
	So we'll see.
	Back in December, banning firearms, and they were talking about donating them to Ukraine.
	I guess they got to move that up because it looks like there might be some sort of settlement on the front or on the horizon in Ukraine.
	So better take advantage of the unification behind the Trump tariffs now to go after what they ultimately want, which is total disarmament and total subservience.
	I think that was largely like virtue signaling.
	I don't think that they were planning on sending a whole lot there, especially because, I mean, quite frankly, if I was Ukrainian right now, I wouldn't want to take a firearm that was seized from a Canadian gun owner into combat because there's a very real possibility that you're going to see people going, oh, well, if they're going to take my guns and send them to who knows where, you know, somebody might, for instance, you know...
	Run it through some heat treatment to weaken the barrel or something.
	I don't know.
	I mean, there's a lot of people who are going to be ticked off about this.
	So we may see some interesting forms of resistance or disagreement with it, too.
	Hunley, can I breathe?
	I can control the back here.
	Yeah, you can do whatever.
	Destroy the stream.
	Just in case anybody forgot or anybody didn't know, back in the day, was it this one right here?
	Yeah, this guy right here.
	The minister.
	What's his name again?
	This guy?
	Minister of...
	Is he the minister?
	He's not the minister of defense now.
	Who is it?
	Ah, whatever this guy's name is.
	This guy.
	You got to actually add it.
	The government is adding a further 300.
	Oh, that's an old one.
	Yeah, this is December.
	... makes and models of assault-style firearms...
	Assault-style....
	to the list of prohibited firearms in Canada.
	This prohibition takes effect immediately.
	This means these firearms can no longer be legally used, sold or imported in Canada and can only be transferred or transported.
	Under extremely limited circumstances.
	This is where it gets good.
	As part of that process, the government of Canada has committed to the Ukrainian government to identify whether some of these guns would be donated to support the fight for democracy in Ukraine.
	We could skip it there.
	Think of the irony in this for a second.
	They want to ban the guns because they're dangerous and the people aren't actually using them to cause harm to other people in Canada, but they want to give them to Ukraine so that way they can be used to kill people.
	Great idea.
	And protect democracy.
	They've got to take them away for democracy and then give them to other people to protect democracy.
	And the way he emphasizes the Ukrainian government.
	We're taking them from you and we're coordinating with the Ukrainian government.
	We're going to protect two democracies at the same time with mutually juxtaposing actions.
	It's totally logical.
	Well, and we're going to send them a bunch of 22s because that's a bunch of stuff on the list there.
	So, yeah.
	Wow. Okay.
	While I get you both on here, I've got a question.
	Is Trudeau actually resigning or not?
	Yes. It's just that he hasn't resigned yet because the We've got a weird system.
	So basically, once he announces that he's resigning, any public announcement that he's resigning within the Liberal Party rules, because the parties get to set their own rules, is a resignation.
	He has to resign at that point.
	But it triggers the leadership convention that they're doing, which is that they're right now picking a new leader.
	Once that new leader is chosen...
	Trudeau is going to step down, and they've said, we don't know what the sort of handoff will look like, but I expect it'll be fairly quick.
	And then Carney, who has never been elected in any way, shape, or form, becomes Prime Minister, which is interesting because he also, because he hasn't been elected, actually doesn't have a right to sit in the House of Commons.
	So when the business of Parliament is going on...
	He's not...
	He doesn't have a seat.
	Wait, wait, wait.
	Help me understand.
	So you're saying that the guy who will be in charge technically doesn't have a right to be there when decisions are made?
	Ian, correct me if I'm wrong.
	He didn't get an elected seat, but someone's going to give him their seat.
	It's the way that you can get someone in as the leader of the party, even though they might not have actually won their seat.
	Normally what they'd do is they'd run a by-election and they'd pick a really safe riding and have him run and, you know, then get a seat that way.
	I suspect what he's going to do instead is just call an election right away because the longer he waits, I think the more sort of the wheels will fall off.
	Because right now he's writing, A, people being upset about the US, and B, he's sort of writing, I guess, shiny new...
	I think he's going to want an election before any of that wears off.
	Assuming he wins his seat, they're going to run him in the safest riding that they possibly can.
	Then he'll be able to be allowed in the House of Commons.
	Appreciate it.
	Thank you, Stephen.
	Also, just to highlight that it's not just that he is not an elected MP.
	He's never held a seat as MP.
	He basically lived out of the country for the better part of the last decade, maybe a decade before the last four years.
	And he's got three different passports.
	The man is a citizen of Canada, the UK, and Ireland.
	So truly, he's a globetrotter who is now going to be the anointed newest Prime Minister of Canada.
	In fairness, I do have to admit that we've had that happen here where we had an unelected person become president.
	His name is Gerald Ford.
	So we're not completely pure in the U.S. And that was a staged coup as well.
	Gerald Ford was Nixon's VP.
	Correct. Gerald Ford, the same guy who moved the trajectory on the diagram of the JFK bullet when he was on the Warren Commission.
	Just redrew the drawing and then coincidentally becomes VP and then stumbles his way into the entire presidency.
	Mark Carney was the, what was he, the chair of the Bank of England?
	Yeah, I believe so.
	He was not the vice chair, he was the chair.
	This guy, he is the WEF personified.
	A Globetrotter 3 passport-carrying, unelected individual who's now going to walk right in, unless something wild happens, to be the next unelected Prime Minister of Canada.
	It's going to be interesting times.
	And, yeah, I mean, they've said where their priorities are.
	Climate, climate, climate, and bankrupting Canada to the benefit of China.
	And what's his face?
	Well, we won't get too much into Canadian politics.
	All right, well, you know, we had the two Canadians on here, so I thought, you know, let's get that out of our system for the Canadian politics.
	Jenny, welcome.
	What have you been covering lately?
	Karen Reed is crazy right now.
	Like, I know that Runkle's been covering it, too.
	And just the obvious bias and the lack of disclosure is out of control.
	So we've been covering that.
	We've also been covering a little bit of Trump stuff.
	Obviously, there was the address that he had before Congress.
	So it's all exciting.
	That's what we're up to.
	Can you do me a favor?
	I ran across somebody yesterday, and I forgot completely.
	But she is...
	Of the mind that Karen Reed is guilty as hell, don't know why she got off, etc.
	And I was truly surprised because out of all of the law two people I know, like you, I believe Andrea and others, it seems to be the exact opposite viewpoint that not only did the investigation get bungled, from what I understand, but she quite literally may be framed or set up.
	Am I misinterpreting what LawTube is thinking?
	And if I'm not, can you steal, man, anybody who is saying that she absolutely is guilty and this is ridiculous?
	Who was it you were saying is on?
	Because I'm curious, because I haven't seen anybody.
	It's a civilian.
	It's a civilian.
	Oh, okay.
	They're not online.
	That's why it just took me by shock, because I'm like, wait, what?
	Maybe she's watching sources that say that.
	One of the really interesting things is just how many of those civilians, when you check it out, have very suspect accounts.
	There's a lot of Twitter accounts that started just around the trial started.
	I've seen a few of what you're talking about, Eric.
	Somebody mentioned on my post yesterday, Runkle, I'm sure you get some of these as well, of people who come in with the older accounts who just say, She's guilty of sin.
	I asked her, I said, well, can you explain what evidence led you to conclude that beyond a reasonable doubt?
	And she pointed out that everybody testified to, everybody who was at the House party testified that he never came in the House.
	That wherever there was a fight or argument, it happened beforehand.
	It was all resolved.
	The only person who found him after the fact was Karen Reed.
	They point to the broken taillight pieces being found at the scene.
	And the fact that she had said during one of her testimonies that, or one of her statements was that she had hit something.
	That she felt like she had backed up and hit something.
	Now, whether that's taken perfectly in context, whether or not, it doesn't excuse.
	So all of the steel man arguments I've heard does not excuse.
	Nor negate the lack of investigation, the impropriety in investigation, and the failure to disclose, which is what we've had.
	And outward lies by the prosecution.
	So I really struggle to end up agreeing with people who find her guilty.
	Maybe people might not know exactly what this case is.
	This is Karen Reed, the Boston woman who's accused of killing her cop boyfriend who was found out in the snow from hypothermia.
	They alleged that she backed him over or hit him with a car and that he died in the snow.
	But I think you need to flesh out the corruption and the...
	It was a hung jury the first trial around, right?
	Yeah. I'll let Marie take over that.
	Yeah, so the corruption would flame that.
	Really interesting because the juror in the interview...
	Demonstrates kind of a shocking lack of understanding of the criminal justice system, because in a lot of places he's like, well, the defense just didn't convince us that this, you know, and it's like, well, it isn't actually that the defense has to convince you on that, it's that, you know, they're like, well, the defense didn't convince us beyond a reasonable doubt, he says at one point.
	It's like...
	That's not how it goes.
	It's not that the defense has to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt.
	It's that the prosecution has to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt.
	But they got a couple of strong personalities on that jury that were very pro-conviction.
	And so it's actually kind of a surprising thing.
	The juror who was interviewed was one who said, I'm not voting for conviction, so go pound sand.
	I had heard that there was some confusion with the instructions, and I'm sorry I got distracted on Rumble, that the jury may have said not guilty on the top charge, but they hung on the second charge, but they weren't instructed to fill out the form or told to give that feedback.
	So the entire verdict was...
	The top and the bottom...
	We're not convicting on those.
	Those we all agree.
	It was the middle charge, the second charge.
	So they wanted to acquit on the second degree murder.
	They wanted to acquit on the leaving the scene.
	But the problem is the remaining charge still...
	Would have a 20-year potential.
	And you know that this judge, who has shown every sign that she leans one way or another, would be giving close to the 20 years there.
	But, you know, properly speaking, they should have pulled the jury and they should have determined, oh, right, they they wanted to acquit on the murder and the leaving the scene.
	And so they should have entered acquittals on those.
	And then it should have been up to the Commonwealth as to whether they wanted to run on the remaining count.
	But instead, she didn't ask any questions.
	She just brings the jury back in is like, OK, bye.
	You're you're gone.
	And then the defense is like, what?
	I'm guessing that you're saying that it should have been handled like Daniel Penny was.
	Where she removed the top charge because the jury had problems with it.
	So she removed the top charge.
	No, the DA dismissed the top charge.
	She got the DA to dismiss the top charge and then they were sent back to determine the lower.
	They wound up saying not guilty all around.
	But would that have been the proper situation there if she had asked them?
	Then the state could have dropped the top charge or not, whatever.
	Given back to the jury?
	It wouldn't have been the...
	Because the Commonwealth isn't dismissing anything.
	They want to go hard.
	Right. But what it should have been is she should have said, well, did you come to a verdict on any of the charges?
	And then they would have said, well, yes, we were unanimous on one and three.
	It's count two that we're deadlocked on.
	It would have been, okay, what did you decide on counts one and three?
	And they would have said, well, we're for acquittal.
	Cool. Acquittal's entered.
	Double Jeopardy applies to one and three.
	Commonwealth, are you running on number two?
	And because the Commonwealth is going hard on this one, they'd be like, yes, we're definitely doing a retrial on that.
	But it would have been a whole different, it becomes a different ballgame.
	And the thing is, to sort of steel man the sort of other side, I will say it's entirely possible that Karen Reed committed exactly what they said.
	It's possible.
	The problem is that we have a system of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
	And the investigation on this one was so awful.
	And if she did commit any or all of these offenses, people should be extremely pissed off at the police.
	Because if you assume that she killed them in this cold-blooded whatever...
	You should be extremely pissed off that Proctor, through texting things like, you know, talking about whether or not he found nudes on the phone and that kind of thing, and talking about his specific animus towards Karen Reed, endangered the trial.
	You should be pissed off about whether the loss of the Sallyport video endangered the trial.
	If you think she's guilty, you should be super pissed that they didn't go up and take pictures of her car before they moved it.
	Which is, like, basic shit.
	Like, this is so basic.
	If you are seizing a vehicle, you take the photos before you touch, before anything touches it.
	Like, I have had files where they just are looking at, like, you know, it's something basic, like they...
	They're doing a search for a gun in a car.
	And the first thing they do before they lay a hand on the vehicle is they walk around it taking pictures.
	Why they didn't do any of this?
	Why they're using solo cups?
	Like, when I started watching it, I was just sitting there thinking, like, it stands up, you know, you know, he stands up and he says, Karen Reed was framed.
	And I wasn't going to cover the trial until that, because then I was like, There's no way he can deliver on this.
	There's no way that this ends up looking anything other than ridiculous by the end of the trial because every time you make an argument that the police framed somebody, it gets, like, blown apart unless there's something really stupid that keeps it from going to trial, like video on a dashcam of a cop planting a gun or something.
	And those ones don't generally go to trial.
	I got to the end and I'm like...
	How is this still plausible?
	So, you're being really generous with the misconduct.
	Like, really generous.
	So, here's what happens, okay?
	They show up on the scene eventually.
	They get there.
	And they come and they collect the blood sample, the alleged blood samples, with red Solo cups.
	And they put them in an open grocery bag in the back of the patrol car.
	Drive said red solo cops back to the sally port and leave them in the sally port so that the cubs with the blood are sitting right next to her vehicle by the time they come and take the vehicle.
	So there's no...
	So forget about anything with cross-contamination.
	And this...
	You left out the best part.
	The leaf blower.
	Okay? Oh, yeah.
	So as they're collecting these red drops of blood, they just...
	To go borrow a neighbor's leaf blower.
	And they come and they leaf blow the surrounding snow to collect more blood samples.
	Did they even take pictures of where the body was?
	I can't recall.
	Stop a second.
	Are they leaf blowing to melt the snow or to blow the snow away?
	To blow the snow away.
	And leave the pooled congealed blood part?
	Yes, and collect it with the red solo cup.
	You're hearing this right.
	And now I'm going to ask an obvious stupid question.
	Were the red solo cups used from the party from the night before?
	Or are they sterile solo cups?
	They went to, like, I think it was another person.
	It was just a person nearby, but I think he was tangentially connected to the police force somehow.
	And they're like, do you have any containers that we could use to...
	And the guy's like, I got some solo cups.
	And they're like, great!
	There's no photos of where the body is.
	They don't take any crime scene photos of where the body was laying in the snow, where it landed.
	They then come back and take photos later.
	The pieces of plastic for the taillight are discovered like two weeks later, I think, after investigators are just driving by and they're like, oh, look at these plastic pieces on the ground.
	They never went inside the home and investigated the home, where the party was.
	Whose party was it?
	I think that's relevant.
	So this is important.
	This is the Alberts home.
	Right, Runkle?
	Yeah. Yeah, so this is Albert Holm, and they are super related to everyone in this case, including the lead investigator.
	Oh, and for me, the kicker in terms of evidence, by the way, the one that I will never let go, and I go, she's innocent.
	She's freaking innocent, is the pig DNA being found on the victim.
	And you might be asking yourself, well, how the hell did pig DNA end up on the victim, right?
	Dog treats.
	Doggy treats!
	Just so happens that the Alberts have this dog named Chloe, and she's a failed police dog.
	Well, Chloe suddenly gets rehomed magically within like a week or like the next day after this death.
	She's just missing.
	She's gone somewhere upstate.
	Bye-bye, Chloe.
	And we never hear from Chloe again.
	I mean, it's just, it's so, here's my theory.
	Okay, I'm going to throw this out here.
	My theory based on what we've heard in the evidence is something happened in the house.
	He went in the house.
	He was drunk.
	Something happened.
	Dog ended up biting and attacking him.
	He gets kicked out of the house.
	I honestly don't think anyone murdered this guy.
	I think he gets kicked out of the house.
	He stumbles out of the house.
	He's bleeding.
	He's been bit by a dog.
	He's super wasted.
	He falls in the snow and dies.
	Honestly. I mean, my theory is he got into a fist fight.
	The dog bites him as a result of, you know, like you get into a fight with somebody who owns a dog.
	The dog picks a side and the dog is going to pick the side of the homeowner every time, right?
	At one point, somebody came to the house and was making my wife really uncomfortable, and our dog, who was an absolute sweetheart, was like, you know, lips pulled back to his ears.
	So, and I think, yeah, I think he leaves the place.
	I think everyone is like, okay, I know there's a theory that, like, he was dragged out there.
	I don't know that I, you know, necessarily buy the dragged out there, but it's possible.
	He does have a head injury.
	On the report when they look at his autopsy.
	So it could have been that he was hit in the head and asked to leave, or that he fell going down the stairs, or keep going, Runkle, sorry.
	Or, yeah, he gets, I mean, head injury, especially the back of the head, is a very common injury in a fight.
	Because you get hit, you fall backwards.
	And it's actually a way that a lot of people end up going to jail for, like, forever in a bar fight.
	Because you get hit, you fall on the back of your head, you can die from that.
	So maybe he passes out and they're just like, he, you know, we need to get him out of the house and they pull him out of the house.
	Or maybe he gets up.
	Maybe he is like, I'm out of here.
	Like, you guys are freaking crazy.
	And he's got a head injury and he walks out into the snow and passes out.
	And then everyone later is like, um, where'd he go?
	And, you know, he just doesn't make it, doesn't make it far because he passes out and passing out in the snow.
	You know, it's super risky.
	Here in Canada, we've got cold.
	I get how that goes.
	But I mean, the thing is, I can't give you a 100% this is what happened, but that's what acquittal looks like in a trial.
	Oh, we forgot the Google search, the how's long to die in the cold.
	Yes. And that was Jen McCabe, right?
	And she was in the house at the time.
	And this was at like, or before she was in the house.
	And then I think she, yeah, she had searched this at like 3 a.m.
	How's long to die in cold?
	There is substantial dispute as to how that search happened.
	But the, you know, they say...
	What's the dispute as to how that search happened?
	Presumably it's black and white.
	So... Basically, they've got technical experts arguing this, and the one side, Karen Reed's side, says that this happens at, like, 2 a.m., which is a point where, theoretically, Jen McCabe should not know that anybody is dying in the cold.
	She should be thinking that, you know, John O'Keefe is home safe and sound, right?
	And everything's cool.
	So if she does that search at that time...
	Then Karen Reed is 100% innocent.
	The problem is that they've got technical experts who say that that search wasn't conducted at that time, that that was just when she opens the window, and that there's this other search for Hockamock Sports.
	I don't know, it's a whole thing there.
	And that instead this search is performed, and they say that the search is that Karen Reed, Grabs Jen McCabe's phone and searches in the phone.
	And it's like, why is she searching in the...
	Like, why would you use somebody else's phone?
	So wait, you're saying...
	Hold on.
	The claim is...
	Let me borrow your phone for a minute so I can search how long it takes somebody to die in the phone.
	Correct. That's their claim.
	So this is the thing.
	It takes more logical...
	Like, illogical assumptions.
	I should say, it takes more assumptions to get to the state's story than it does to assume we don't know exactly what happened.
	Which is the most reasonable answer here.
	Nobody knows exactly what happened and we can't say that she hit him with the car and that's the cause of his death.
	And out of thousands of text messages on Jen McCabe's phone, she's deleted one text message in the history of time, which is the Haas Long to Die in the Cold text message.
	And it's really weird that she would delete that one, because why would you delete the text message that you think is evidence of a murder of your friend unless you are connected to the murder of your friend, right?
	Well, hold on.
	Was she protecting Karen Reed by deleting that?
	Or was she testifying against Karen Reed?
	She hates Karen Reed.
	She hates Karen Reed so much.
	Oh, and all the butt dials.
	I forgot about that.
	If, like, Viva was murdered and I had evidence of that, if I wasn't connected to the murderer, I would want the murderer to...
	And I'd be like, police officer, you need to see this, not delete.
	Right? It makes no sense at all when you try to, like...
	So when I look at their story, oh yes, and they have all of these mystery phone calls that happen in sort of the critical period, and a bunch of them took their phones, like one of them took their phone off to a military base to throw it out.
	And so just to create a little jurisdictional problem, like he doesn't throw it out at home, he takes it off to a military base.
	Was this person a cop?
	Yes. So he would have obvious knowledge of a jurisdictional problem that might be created.
	Yep. And they all are very well aware, too, of the paperwork that's entailed when the dog ends up biting their friend, when they end up getting in a fight with their friend, punching their friend, and kicking him out of the house.
	They are all very keenly aware of how much of a piece of, like, nightmare that's going to be the next day.
	The other...
	The other wonderful, like, bizarre...
	They have all these phone calls between each other during, like, this critical period where it'd be like, if he's in trouble, then that's the critical moment.
	And when asked about these phone calls, they are all like, it's a butt dial.
	And the thing is that, like, some of these butt dials that they're claiming...
	Two-minute, three-minute, four-minute butt dials?
	Some of them are, like, extensively long, but also...
	Like, the one of them is there sleeping next to his wife, and he says that the phone, like, you know, everybody takes their phone and they put it on the bedside, you know, the nightstand.
	But he says that, no, he sleeps with the phone in the bed, and that's how it would have gotten butt dialed.
	That's how you get testicular cancer, people.
	Don't do that, by the way.
	It was like, how do you get a butt dial if the phone is up on...
	Does he sleep alone?
	No, with his wife.
	Oh, that must be fun.
	So are they recording activities?
	I'm curious.
	I think that the only explanation for how they could accidentally get a butt dial there is if the phone is on voice activation and his wife was screaming somebody else's name and the phone was just like, okay, dialing.
	It makes no sense.
	I've been saying that this is the town where everyone has a prehensile asshole because...
	Otherwise, how do you get all of these sput dials?
	Ian, I have a question for you about the motion to dismiss Broth.
	And my understanding is that the missing videos were not missing as of June 2024, that the investigator had downloaded them for his own purposes.
	To defend himself in the event that there, because he had heard that there were accusations of misconduct.
	So naturally, rather than handing over all the phone evidence to the defense, you know, like he should have done before the trial, he instead decides to download it all for himself.
	And then those files are later overwritten.
	That's how I understood that to work out.
	Can you assure me that that's how I understood was correct?
	That what I understood was correct?
	I don't know.
	I haven't heard the thing about like he suspected, you know, whatever.
	But it is weird because they have this video recorder.
	Yeah, and I don't know that I put much weight in things he says because he's sort of had a casual relationship with the truth.
	Oh, he is.
	Oh, Eric, this man is the worst effing liar.
	He goes off.
	He tells the judge last week what caused the judge to storm off and be like.
	We'll come back next week.
	She's all mad.
	Huffy poppy.
	She leaves.
	And what caused that is he said, well, we just got evidence from the feds that wasn't disclosed to us until the feds disclosed it.
	Went off on a 10-minute tangent and rant about reciprocal discovery and how the defense isn't following the rules.
	Only to then admit after she asks him.
	So had she not asked, he wouldn't have admitted this.
	She asks him for clarification.
	He goes, actually, it's the defense that gave that to us.
	So it wasn't the feds at all.
	It was the defense in the first place.
	They were following the rules.
	It's just, okay, sorry, keep going.
	I'll shut up.
	It's just crazy.
	How did they decide to try her again after the hungover?
	What new evidence, if any, do they?
	Oh, they hate her.
	And so they are going to just go hard.
	Basically, the problem is, at this point, and this is one of the issues with publicity, is that it's helped her defend herself, but it also has a flip side to it, which is that if she is acquitted, there's going to be a lot of people going, what is with the policing there?
	And so, to defend the policing, they have to get a conviction.
	They're like, she has to go to jail, because otherwise people are going to ask all of these cops.
	Questions about, A, are you capable of doing your job?
	Like, just on a basic level, are you capable of investigating a crime at all?
	And B, is there massive corruption within the police department?
	Because if this is a frame-up, it involves a whole lot of people getting together to be like, well, we can't have a cop involved.
	And they actually make a text like that about, like, you know, what about...
	because they find this body on somebody's front lawn and they're like, well, what about the homeowner?
	And they say something along the lines of, well, he's not going to have any problems.
	He's a Canton police officer, which is just like, what?
	Cause I mean, I'm just going to say, and they never even ask to search the house.
	They're just like, well, we wouldn't have had enough to get a warrant.
	The thing is, is that they do consent searches all the time, It's the scene of the day!
	It's the last place he was seen.
	This is insane.
	And all they had to have done was ask.
	Can we come take a look?
	If you assume Karen Reed is guilty, then the failure to ask to have a look around has actually been a tremendous disservice to this police officer.
	Because if you assume she's guilty, wouldn't it have been amazing for this cop to have just walked around, taken pictures, and just been like...
	See, there's no signs of a fight.
	There's no blood in here.
	There's no anything.
	Nothing happened in here.
	And they could have absolutely established that if Karen Reed is guilty and if they did basic policing, but they didn't.
	So, in my neighborhood, with Canadian police who, whatever, we can argue about their...
	There was a break-and-enter down the street, and they went down the street asking people if they saw anything, and they asked if they could look around in my house to see if any of the missing stuff was there, and I told them to go pound sand.
	But the notion that if there was a dead person on my front lawn, that they wouldn't have been like, we would really like to have a look around, is just bizarre to me.
	Shouldn't there be a search warrant?
	I mean, that seems to be reasonable enough suspicion to warrant looking inside the house to see if it could be tied to the person dead on the ground.
	I mean, if I was the cops, I would have asked for the consent search.
	And maybe they say yes, maybe they say no.
	But I would have applied for the warrant regardless.
	Even if my evidence was, I thought, thin, I would have asked for the warrant.
	And then if you get the warrant, you go and you have a look around, right?
	And if you don't get the warrant, at least when somebody comes back to you and is like, why didn't you search the house?
	You can say, I asked him if I could search the house.
	He said no.
	I applied for a warrant.
	The court said no.
	That's all I can do, right?
	But instead, they seem to just be like, yeah, this guy's a cop.
	We're not going to bother him too much.
	Also, wouldn't the warrant be advisable not only...
	To inform the police if it could have happened, but also to rule out the homeowner.
	It's the same way that body cam footage half the time works in the cop's favor, half the time it works in the other person's favor when there's an encounter.
	It could go either way.
	It's just a matter of getting the truth.
	But they're not interested in that.
	If there is one thing I can say about the prior trial and this one, there is zero interest in getting to the truth.
	Or to having a better understanding of the truth.
	There is zero interest by the judge, by the prosecution, by the investigator, by anyone but the defense team.
	It is so disturbing, the rulings that this judge has made, how she has landed on each and every one of those things.
	She just, get this, she just allowed the same expert who testified before to come in and testify again.
	Guess what this guy is an expert in?
	He's a friggin' Cesar Millan type, okay?
	He's going around going, that's good, that's good, okay?
	That is his whole shtick, okay?
	He's a dog behavioralist, and they are allowing him to come in and testify.
	Has he ever met the dog?
	No! He's allowed them to come and testify about a dog bite, and more specifically, dog bite injury.
	I'll let you take over, Runkle.
	So previously, they wanted to have testimony from the ARCA experts, which were hired by the FBI, their crash reconstruction guys.
	And she said, because they're not medical experts, the law of the land is that you cannot testify about causation of an injury unless you have a medical degree.
	That's a requirement by law.
	And so therefore, they can testify about all sorts of things.
	But they cannot testify as to the causation of the injuries of John O'Keefe.
	Okay, fine.
	That's her ruling.
	And it does actually appear to be backed up by Massachusetts law.
	So great.
	The problem is that then they get this guy who's like literally dog behavior.
	Like as she says, it's Cesar Millan.
	It's, you know, he deals with like...
	Teaching dangerous dogs to not bite people as much.
	Right. Now, if he worked with a dog, I could see that being relevant.
	If he was a dog trainer and he had worked with a dog, then he would be familiar.
	But I don't see how somebody who's never met the dog could be helpful.
	He had access to a mold of the dog's teeth.
	But he's going to testify that the bite injuries, they look very, very clearly like a bite.
	I've, you know, my clients sometimes get bitten by police dogs.
	And so then I get pictures of the injuries from the bites.
	And it looks exactly like the injuries on John O'Keefe's arm.
	But this guy's going to come in and say, that is not a dog bite injury.
	So he's going to testify directly as to causation of an injury without a medical degree.
	Because apparently the judge's rulings just only apply on one side.
	It is such an obvious and palpable bit of hypocrisy that just screams bias.
	And I am...
	I have been reluctant.
	You know, people have been saying she's biased, she's biased, she's biased.
	And I'm like, she's a judge, she's got a lean.
	And this one just makes me go, this is bias.
	Like, this is...
	Like, at this point...
	I'm just like, how can she be judging this when she's making this kind of discordant ruling?
	It's insane.
	Well, and it's also just the way she conducts these hearings as well.
	And, you know, things that seem minor but add up to a lot, when you're in the middle of making your argument and the judge keeps asking questions, keeps interrupting you, and then keeps saying things like, well, where are we?
	Where's the page?
	I'll need a copy of that.
	Well, where's the timestamp on that?
	Where's this?
	And she doesn't do it at all to the prosecution.
	At all!
	As a matter of fact, the prosecution, when she does ask, will go, I think it came, so most recently, the prosecution had claimed that Karen Reed's counsel had said something that may have biased a potential jury, and in making these comments, it was inappropriate.
	And that he had made it during a TV interview.
	Turns out, no!
	He made the comments during a judicial proceeding.
	During one of the proceedings.
	And she asked him, well, can you send me the interview?
	And he's like, yeah, I'll get on that.
	It's like, what is he going to send you, dummy?
	He's going to send you the transcript from the court if he finds it at all.
	But she'll never check.
	She'll never go back and take a look-sees.
	She doesn't care.
	I'm honestly, it's so mind...
	Numbing to watch and so frustrating to watch as someone who has dealt with biased judges in the past, where they certainly have an indicated lien, even in those cases where I've been in those situations, it is not so egregious as this.
	Not anywhere near this.
	I've never in practice encountered a judge like this.
	It's really bad, Eric.
	Is she a former prosecutor, the judge, or former defense judge?
	In fact, she was a former attorney.
	It all shocks me, to be honest, because there's so many aspects of her rulings where you can tell she didn't even look at the law.
	She never looked at the code.
	She didn't look at the cases that were cited.
	She never reviewed them.
	And it's so funny because she asked for all this paper.
	Oh, oh, and then the prosecution, sorry, the prosecution like last week or two weeks ago asked for an extension to reply.
	And then the judge turns to the defense and says, okay, how many days do you need?
	And literally huffs like that, asks it with that tone, how many days do you need?
	And she goes, oh, as many as, you know, I need this many.
	And she goes, oh, well, that's a really long time.
	We're trying to be expeditious.
	And she goes, you literally just gave that amount of time to the prosecution.
	And she goes, oh, well, then that's fine.
	And it's just...
	That's why I asked if she was a former prosecutor or not, because what you're describing sounds like somebody who may be acting as if they're a prosecutor herself.
	I don't know if she's a former prosecutor, but she seems to be a current one.
	Exactly. I'm just wondering.
	Okay, well, somebody asked this.
	I'm not familiar with it.
	Are you guys...
	Covering the Slenderman trial?
	I've never heard of that.
	One last question before we go.
	Karen Reed's trial is being broadcast again, right?
	This time it's like people are live streaming it?
	Yeah, it was live broadcast.
	It's all indications.
	I mean, unless she decides last minute that she's going to ban it.
	It's amazing that it's a level of corruption that should have public appeal.
	Is Emily Baker covering this?
	Who is covering it?
	Everybody. Everybody.
	Okay, cool.
	And is there...
	I'm not getting involved in it, but is there meaningful public interest or is it not a Johnny Depp trial?
	It's not quite Johnny Depp, but there's meaningful interest.
	Nothing's Johnny Depp.
	There's huge interest, but it's not...
	I mean, nothing's ever going to be Johnny Depp again.
	The first Karen Reed was wildly viewed.
	I just don't know if people have fatigued and moved on from part two of this.
	Vices, I think, did a lot on that too, right, Jeff?
	Oh yeah, Jeff was the one who was like, Danny, you have to learn about this trial.
	He's like, you have to get in here.
	And I just, the minute they pulled out the snowblower, or the leaf blower, I could not stop laughing.
	I was just dumbstruck.
	And they have video of it too!
	No video of the car before it's brought into police custody.
	They don't have video of her coming and leaving the house on the night in question.
	They don't have video of anything regarding Karen Reed, but they do have video of this idiot cop walking around fumbling around with this leaf blower in the snow.
	Is there any anti-Karen Reed coverage?
	I'm just curious.
	No, I haven't been able to find any lawyer.
	And it's funny because I...
	The Prosecutor's Podcast, I think, is what it's called.
	Okay, they're on side for the whole prosecution?
	Yep, they're 100% bought and sold.
	This woman did it, and the prosecution can do nothing wrong, and they are perfect childs.
	Money, please.
	Fair. Okay, I just wanted to point it out in case people want to watch back and forth.
	I don't know.
	It's tough.
	And it's funny because I had a prosecutor here, like a Canadian prosecutor, who was telling me that there's no way that this trial is as bad as whatever.
	That, you know, he's like, you know, you being online has changed your, like, you've lost your objectivity.
	And I was like, what?
	So he watched it and he sent me back something.
	He's like...
	What is wrong with this police department?
	And I was like, do you see?
	He's like, no, I get it.
	This is crazy.
	And I'm like, yeah, it's...
	So there's always the accusation from people who are upset with the coverage and they go, hey, you guys are just grifting.
	That's the allegation.
	And the thing is...
	Like, Danny's covering this.
	I'm covering this.
	I do it with recaps, you know, in the evening because I got court in the day.
	Emily's covering this.
	Lawyer, you know.
	Everybody is talking about this one.
	Someone... Oh, sorry, sorry.
	I've been to catch up there.
	When you think about the grift, it's like there's one pie for all the people who are, like, on Karen Reed's side, which is being sliced into a million tiny slivers.
	If I wanted to grift this...
	I'd be on the other side going, I'm going to take the entirety of everybody who wants to see her convicted.
	And it just really stuns me that people don't understand.
	The lawyers take a side, not because there's money in it, but because...
	And often we take a side that the money is the worst on.
	So they don't get it.
	It doesn't make any sense.
	It's just that we watch this trial.
	And, like, I've had multiple prosecutors reach out to just be like, I would never run this.
	I would kill this file so, like, so fast because there just isn't a case left.
	Is Legal Eagle, someone in our local community wants to know what Legal Eagle's take on it was.
	Is he covering this?
	I don't think he covered it.
	I have not watched a Legal Eagle video.
	I don't think he does.
	Okay. And he does one-off stuff.
	I think...
	I've never seen him live-stream commentate.
	No. He does single videos.
	Before we get into Slenderman, can we bump it back up to Canada?
	Because on my side, they were asking if...
	Ian, you've been following the dismissal of the contestation of the prorogation of Parliament?
	I did, and that was...
	I'm sorry, what?
	Can you do that a little slower?
	Let's pack up.
	Okay. Explain for the Americans.
	The Canadian Parliament is a parliamentary system, and when they end a session of government for one reason or the other, unless it's a calling election, it's called prorogation, proroguing Parliament.
	You end the session, all pending bills die, they call a break, they reorganize, reschedule, recalibrate, and then they call a new session.
	The bills that have died are dead, you can start them again.
	Investigations that were live are dead, and you can start them again.
	It's what Boris Johnson did in the UK when he promoted Parliament during the Brexit fiasco, scandal, whatever, crisis.
	You can just call this?
	You can just call it whenever you want.
	It's basically...
	Who approves it?
	It's literally a game timeout, right?
	Because it's a game timeout and the clock's still running.
	There's still something to be lost for one team or another.
	It's a game timeout because...
	When they're prorogued, they can't meet to pass new bills.
	But they do still have various powers.
	Which is why you've got Trudeau, who's still negotiating poorly with Trump.
	Why you've got Trudeau...
	Why they're able to do things like ban additional guns via an order in council.
	They still have a lot of power.
	It's just nobody...
	They just banned more than a hundred...
	New models of guns today.
	Danny, our government has been prorogued since, when was it?
	January? It's been prorogued for a couple of months and it's going to be prorogued.
	It's still out of session until March 24th.
	How do you bring it back?
	Well, they recess it or they prorogued for a specific set period of time, then they've got to come back and start a new session.
	Okay. Now, it's discretionary, but it's sort of like executive discretionary.
	He can do it.
	Hold on, so is this literally...
	A way to shut down any opposition you might have.
	Yes, that is exactly what they are.
	It's a way to recalibrate, re-strategize, and then you come back and you start from scratch if you had some bills or investigations that were suspicious.
	It's been done.
	It's never been challenged in Canada.
	When Boris Johnson proroged Parliament, they challenged it.
	And the unanimous decision at the time was that his prorogation of Parliament was abusive or unlawful, and they ordered the government to reconvene so they could deal with the Brexit crisis.
	That just sounds scary to me, because it sounds like a way to just say, oh, you nasty Parliament, I don't want to deal with you right now, so I'll just...
	Shut it down, say a timeout, and then I'll just pass things on my own.
	I just do whatever the hell I want.
	What was happening was that they weren't able to get anything done because they had been ordered to provide documents on this green slush fund.
	So basically they had a bunch of money that was for green projects that just kind of went into a big piggy bank that they were absolutely...
	We have one of those too, a few.
	We get it.
	And then...
	But they were required to provide documents, and all of the opposing parties were saying, you have to provide the documents.
	And they actually got a ruling from the Speaker of the House, who is a liberal, which was, you have to provide the documents.
	And so until they provided the documents, nothing was going ahead.
	So they're like, well, we're going to prorogue.
	And then Trudeau steps down, and they're using the prorogation time to do this whole leadership contest, wherein they pretend that there's really a contest, but their anointed figure of Mark Carney is going to take over.
	They've decided he's the thing, and so, yeah, that's fun.
	Oh yeah, this is a great thing that somebody's pointing out.
	If you don't agree with something that Ian is saying, remember he owns a flamethrower now.
	And by the way, can I point out the irony that it's very difficult to have any kind of gun in Canada but flamethrowers?
	No problem.
	Guaranteed. I've got one in the other room.
	That is a registered, highly regulated flamethrower that has a maximum flame distance of 6 feet or 2 meters, as they say in Canada.
	50 feet.
	That's what it says on the box.
	That's pretty good.
	He's got one of the therapeutic flamethrowers.
	Oh, therapeutic.
	Okay. What do they call it?
	A scurvice flamethrower.
	Okay, I'm joking.
	It's my emotional support flamethrower.
	It's my emotional support flamethrower.
	Wow. So, okay, but you also have the NVGs or Night Vision goggles or nods or whatever you call them.
	Remember, Ian, don't wear them at the same time.
	No, that would be a bad combo.
	Sorry, anyway.
	Word of advice for the day.
	Alright, Slenderman.
	Is that something people are covering?
	I don't even know anything about it.
	I thought that trial was done.
	Are we talking about a review of the release?
	Because this is a case of two young girls who went out into the woods with their little friend and they alleged that they were being controlled by Slenderman, which is a...
	Copypasta type scary story about this guy who just goes and steals and kills kids.
	Anyway, so these girls go out into the woods and they end up stabbing their friend almost to death.
	By a miracle, she survives.
	But both girls are tried and I think they each got 25-30 year sentences.
	It is a review of her release.
	One of the girls claimed that she was psychotic and that she basically had all these mental problems.
	She was hearing voices and that Slenderman told her to do this.
	The other girl was basically just going along with it.
	Now, I think that the one that they're looking at releasing is the one who just 40 year sentences.
	Thank you, Jeremiah.
	I think the one that they are considering releasing is the one who was not the ringleader, not the one who was on top of the girl doing most of the stabbing.
	But the one who was sort of following along.
	And so this is a decision as to whether or not she should be released.
	Now, in my personal opinion, regardless, if she was susceptible enough to follow this other girl into committing this heinous act, I have serious concerns about her safety in public as a young adult.
	I don't know what the conditions of release are going to be.
	I'll have to take a look at that, but I would hope that they're very, very certain.
	No, somebody's saying it's the ringleader.
	Oh, it's the ringleader?
	How? I can't.
	This is, see, and this is the show.
	I have no words.
	I have no words.
	This poor young woman, I can't even imagine what her and her family must be going through right now.
	I'll have to cover that.
	That's so disturbing.
	Thank you for the heads up, you guys.
	I didn't realize.
	I knew that they had tried back in 2020 or 2021.
	I didn't know it was back up again.
	Let me guess, COVID overpopulation?
	How many people, you know, somebody should do a study on this.
	I'm serious about how many really sick, hardcore felons managed to sneak out during the COVID prison population issues.
	And I'll give you an example.
	There was a A cop killer in Virginia, in Richmond, and it wasn't like a shootout type of thing.
	This guy quite literally executed a cop.
	It was like, you know, the cop pulled him over.
	He went and, you know, just bang, you know, just shot him in the head, cold-blooded.
	He was on death row, okay?
	It was that kind of a case.
	The death row sentence somehow got overturned or something happened.
	They were going to let him out during COVID.
	There's another case where there's this pharmacist.
	I don't know if you've ever heard of this one.
	It got overshadowed because of 9-11.
	There's a lot of cases that kind of got overshadowed with 9-11 that people, like the McDonald's monopoly scam everybody forgot about because of 9-11.
	This pharmacist, what his scam was, he got experimental cancer treatments that cost an extreme amount of money, and he was like, Putting in sugar pills, mixing it in, and collecting money from people, from cancer patients who are literally dying.
	It's so disturbing.
	He was going to be let out again because of COVID.
	So I would be curious if somebody put together a list of people.
	Who got out.
	Now, I think both those two were stopped because somebody managed to get in there and say, what the hell are you doing?
	Are you crazy?
	But I don't think everything was stopped.
	Here at the county jail, they were releasing people en masse.
	They were like 200, 300 a day.
	And it was happening all over the country.
	I mean, when I ran in 2022, looking back at the numbers of 2020, it was historically high crime rates, specifically in violent crime.
	And you saw escalations in crime.
	So people who had gone to jail for violent offenses were then being released and then going back to jail for actual murder.
	So they were basically finishing what they had started.
	I mean, it's just a natural consequence and a reasonable expectation that there was an intent, I think.
	To destroy communities on a local level.
	And it's sad because it's so diffuse and so widespread that I think it's really not well reported on.
	But Eric, that's an interesting point.
	I want to go look that up.
	Yeah, it just seems like there will probably be a lot of content.
	I may do that too.
	I mean, there's some content for you because a lot of people sliding through the cracks.
	It's bonkers.
	I bring this up because there's one who came up for parole.
	I think it's been stalled, but Stephanie Lazarus.
	I don't know if you've heard of her.
	Stephanie Lazarus was a cop and in California in the 80s brutally beat and killed her lover's wife.
	Yeah, she was with this guy, was like a lover.
	He moved on from her, got married or whatever.
	She was so enraged, she killed this person.
	I mean, it's a really, really, really, really brutal thing.
	She was on the police force.
	Now, this woman is very famous because her interrogation is online, and the behavior panel did it, and others did it, and she looks completely bonkers.
	I mean, she's got...
	She's like this.
	You probably have seen her shot online.
	If I pulled it up, you'd be like, oh, God, yeah, I've seen that woman, that picture.
	Stephanie Lazarus.
	Yeah, if you could look it up while I'm talking.
	Mark, my partner on America's Untold Stories, actually interviewed her the day before or the day she was arrested because it was a cold case, had gone cold for a while.
	She was about to take over the art department.
	In the LA Police Department.
	So she was being promoted up.
	And they caught her.
	And this is like in 2010.
	2010 time frame?
	Well, they're talking about releasing her now.
	So she got away with murder literally for years.
	Ah, there we go.
	There's Stephanie.
	There's Stephanie.
	I just saw one very brief clip.
	Let me think.
	God, this has been a long time ago.
	She's got to look like a mother.
	I may have met her.
	Geez. The words, gosh, God, gee, are exclamatory remarks used to express surprise or strong emotion.
	You will see them used continuously throughout this interrogation, which is the suspect trying to insinuate a vague memory due to a lack of contemplation on the subject matter.
	She's trying to omit the impression that...
	Yeah, that's...
	You want to see her face for a second?
	How long did you guys date?
	Are you guys...
	Is this something...
	As we know, Stephanie...
	She looks crazy.
	There's a lot of shots.
	You can find still images.
	She really is super expressive and looks bonkers.
	Her victim was pregnant, says Jenny C over in Rumble.
	I have no knowledge of that case.
	I hope she rots in hell.
	Well, right now, she's fortunately rotting in prison.
	I'd like to keep her there.
	It is so completely crazy if you consider things like Sirhan Sirhan, right?
	Sirhan Sirhan, very famously everybody claims that he killed RFK.
	I actually don't think he killed RFK.
	RFK Jr. doesn't think he killed RFK.
	The guy he actually did shoot, Paul Schrade, in the head.
	Surhan Surhan shot Paul Schrader in the head.
	And he survived.
	He survived.
	He just died, though.
	He was like 93. But anyway, he survived.
	He was fighting to get Surhan Surhan released because Surhan Surhan could not have killed RFK.
	But however you look at it, Surhan Surhan has been in prison since like 68. The Menendez brothers, it looks like they're going to be released.
	They were not even born.
	When Sirhan Sirhan went in.
	So this guy, very deep into his 70s and all that, he can't get out.
	But with Stephanie Lazarus, he can get out no problem.
	Sorry, you know this more.
	I think I know the answer to this, but how does one get shot in the head and not die?
	Was there a gunpowder issue?
	A smaller caliber angle.
	There are a lot of people who have survived headshots.
	I was wondering in this particular case if it was an indication as to how he couldn't have killed RFK either because his ammo...
	Because he was on the opposite side.
	So, okay, he shot Paul Schrade.
	He was in front of RFK Jr.
	RFK Jr. took a shot to his back and a shot to the back of his head.
	So, unless he's a masterful bank shooter and it reflected around the room, it was not possible Sirhan Sirhan could have shot him.
	He shot Schrade and into the others.
	They tackled him and he was held down.
	He kept pulling the trigger.
	Speaking of conspiracy theories, I think we're all in different silos here.
	Is everybody following?
	Oh, first of all, Ginger Ninja just had a baby the day before yesterday.
	Congratulations. Yay!
	Congratulations. Ginger, you told me it's number...
	It's number two or three.
	Definitely two or three.
	I forget now.
	Anyway, I got pictures.
	He is a beautiful baby.
	Does everybody know who Ian Carroll is?
	Can I bring this one in gratuitously?
	Oh, boy.
	What do you want to go to?
	I just noticed everybody's accusing him of rising to fame, being a suspicious character.
	Message it.
	I just noticed this today.
	Look at this.
	Look at this.
	Okay. Nio Berg says, has this guy ever spoken about Qatari money?
	Max Nordo, who I know from the DeSantis fight, says, you never hear him talking about Qatar.
	Same picture, same message.
	Then you got Eyal Yacobi.
	Qatar has given hundreds of billions.
	Has he ever talked about Qatar?
	Then you got this other guy who says, make it your own, as far as the messaging goes, if this is coordinated messaging, saying, is this guy talking about Qatar?
	I just thought this was totally weird.
	It comes up in my feed, so maybe I'm just noticing what the feed recommends.
	In fairness, Nick Fuentes was just bragging about, isn't it amazing that we had Ian Carroll on Joe Rogan, Candace Owens on Theo Vaughn.
	We've got coordinated messaging on two sides of whatever equation.
	I don't know if I'd want to dig too deep into that one.
	Oh, I'm not digging into the legitimacy of the claim.
	I think the coordinated messaging clearly seems to be coming from the side making the accusation of coordinated messaging, quite literally.
	But it's just weird to see the messaging come out.
	I guess it's the nature of the industry.
	When someone succeeds, everyone has to find nefarious reasons and not just...
	Well, if you've been watching him for a while, David...
	I haven't.
	He has a certain viewpoint that he's very clear...
	And it's very consistent, and it's been going for years.
	I've seen a lot of the clips.
	He really doesn't like a particular country, and he's very, very, very vocal about it.
	A lot of people do like that country, and they're very vocal the other way.
	Is it Israel?
	Of course.
	He's critical of America, Israel.
	No, I've seen his other stuff being critical of some global elites, which I think is appropriate.
	I mean, as long as it's...
	I've told this to Ron Coleman a million times.
	I have Jew blinders on.
	I don't know why, but it's a total blind spot in my life.
	I've never heard of Jew conspiracies or any of that.
	You're lucky.
	I know.
	I'm from Utah, you would think.
	Maybe I would get it, but I'm under a rock in terms of those conspiracies.
	What bothers me is that everybody ties that to antisemitism when it's like, wait a second, no, there are legitimate concerns that some of these global elites are engaged in.
	And everybody now is able to say, well, the global elites, it's a dog whistle to this other thing.
	And it's like, wait a second.
	It can be.
	Here's the problem.
	It can be and often is, depending on who you're talking about.
	I don't think Dave is going to be up in the corner defending Nick Fuentes.
	And say, Nick Fuentes is only just pointing out problems with Israel, when every time he starts talking, you just keep listening for a while, the word Jews drops in.
	It's like this impulse thing.
	He might have an obsession.
	It doesn't mean, I mean, I'm not going to defend him as a human.
	I don't need to, but it's not the case that because someone has an obsession, even an unhealthy one, and is even wrong and promotes propaganda, that everything they say is therefore wrong.
	Sure. Well, broken costs are right twice a day, sure.
	Yeah, and he's an unreliable source, as far as I'm concerned.
	Ian, whether or not he has an emphasis on certain countries in particular, the thing is, he talks about Israel, US, UK.
	What's ironic, though, is even Whitney Webb, who he was quoting on Joe Rogan, Pointed out that he left out half of her statements, that he focused only on Mossad, whereas she is writing saying, no, no, no, no, no.
	It's the CIA.
	It's organized crime, and she does say Jewish as well.
	It is an organized type of cabal situation.
	He tends to just parse out the particular part.
	And again, this is Whitney Webb.
	I'm not necessarily a fan of her, but he was quoting her as a source, and his own source is saying, hey...
	The issue is, however, I pick on China a lot because it's a corrupt government.
	That doesn't make me anti-Chinese.
	The idea is...
	Well, you could be anti-Chinese.
	There's nothing wrong with that.
	Well, there is anti-China government.
	There's nothing wrong with being anti-China government.
	That's exactly what we're saying.
	But you're not necessarily racist against Asians, I think, is what you're trying to claim.
	Well, Chinese in particular, because we're talking about one country and one government.
	And so the issue is he's going after the countries of political military power.
	It's going to involve Israel, period.
	They have space lasers.
	But also us.
	It involves us.
	If you take Epstein, a lot of people...
	We have space lasers too.
	I work for Raytheon.
	I helped with a lot of this stuff and specifically in trait compliance with weapons.
	I can tell you who the major players are.
	It's not a conspiracy that...
	A lot of our friends are reselling our weapons on the black market, whether that be Ukraine or Turkey.
	Turkey, we're definitely not allowed to sell to, right?
	But how's Turkey getting a hold of all of our weaponry, right?
	There's a lot there.
	So I'll tell you right now, I'm going to take my hands off this.
	This is a level of conspiracy I don't play in.
	I only play in certainties with conspiracies.
	You know who I'm certain?
	There's one conspiracy.
	One conspiracy I'm 100% certain of, and I have to say it because there's two Canadians on this show.
	Justin Trudeau.
	I know who his daddy is.
	We all know it's Fidel Castro.
	There's no question in my mind.
	I will bank my career on this.
	I will bank my life on it.
	That is how certain I am that when Fidel Castro, you have a picture of him holding up Justin Trudeau.
	He looks like the happiest dad, proudest dad in the world.
	100%. They look very similar.
	You do know that, I mean, not to say, like, you do know, like, how do you not know this?
	His mom slept around like it was great.
	They had sex.
	Oh, yeah.
	Oh, no.
	They were totally waiting.
	He's, like, all over him.
	He's, like, looking over his shoulder downwards.
	Okay? Like, those are good.
	Can we stay in fun conspiracy world that we're certain?
	The best conspiracy theory.
	That one's fun.
	The one that I believe is also not fun but true is that Justin Trudeau had an unlawful relationship with a student which resulted in him signing an NDA and leaving that school that he was teaching at.
	That is one of the unconfirmed...
	What about his brother's odd death?
	Why don't we get into some of the...
	His relationship, by the way, how about his relationship with his mother?
	I have never looked at...
	A more loving look between two people like he and his mother.
	It was very weird.
	Trudeau and his mother, after his brother died, they were like...
	It was like she had the son that she loved left.
	It's a terrible thing.
	I asked his other brother, Kyle Kemper, who's a hardcore Maha and now very happy to be on board with the MAGA.
	It's Trudeau's half-brother.
	They come from the same...
	Mother? No, hold on a second.
	Who do they share?
	Ian's tuning out, so we might be in danger.
	They're half-brothers.
	Who do they share?
	A mother or a father?
	I think they share the mother.
	They share the mother.
	And I asked Ian straight up.
	He said the conspiracy theories about the brother are untrue.
	It was an avalanche, and he died.
	But, and then I asked him about, he wouldn't get into the conspiracy theory about Trudeau, and whether or not there's any truth to the allegations that he had improper relations with the student, which led to his, I personally believe it, and I know that it's unsubstantiated, and there's a fake article on something called, like, the Beaverton, which said, oh, we got the NDA.
	It's a small world, I personally believe it.
	But it has not been proven, but that's one that would, you know, there's really serious rumorings and suspicions, and...
	Conspiracies as to how that NDA has never been released and so on and so forth.
	I'll take a look at that one.
	How about Prince Harry's father if you're going to go into it?
	What about Prince Harry's father?
	What about Prince Harry's father?
	I need to make a list.
	Well, Princess Di had a coach or whatever and the guy is the spitting image of Prince Harry.
	Oh, I have heard of this one.
	No, I've heard of this one.
	Yeah, see, these are good conspiracies.
	Another good thing to think about, too, is even if you believe that, like, Israel's involved in everything in world politics, which they very well may be.
	They're part of the five eyes.
	Just like the CIA, just like, okay, anyone else.
	Let's say that they are.
	And let's say that Epstein is tied to that.
	Does it not concern us more that our government allowed this to happen and knew about this for decades and continue to hide it and continue to allow it?
	They urged it.
	Yeah, they're using it.
	That could be where we're at.
	Like, screw us.
	I don't give a crap about Israel.
	My concern is how the F was our government allowing, facilitating, and coordinating this.
	It's very, I don't know, to me, the whole F is very integral.
	They could very well be using Israeli intelligence to carry out their dirty work.
	If you want to blame America.
	If you want to blame Israel, then you'll say Israel is using America to carry out its dirty work.
	I mean, either way, both their fingerprints are on it.
	That's all I care about.
	I want to get to the truth.
	If it's America, they deserve, as far as I'm concerned, they deserve protests in the street.
	If America is doing this, which in my opinion, we are.
	Then we need to be out there protesting in the streets until we get the truth.
	Okay, we know for sure that we're involved because the guy, he was a registered informant for the FBI.
	That's on record.
	He also got that sweetheart deal in 2007-2008.
	It wasn't Israel who gave him the deal.
	It was us.
	It was the FBI.
	And then Alex Okota ended up becoming the head of HUD.
	After. That's the prosecutor who gave him the sweetheart deal.
	And on top of that, you guys, it already implicated.
	People forget that there was congressmen and senators who were implicated in the Epstein case who already are in jail for their role in it out of New Mexico and out of other states.
	What's concerning to me is the testimony of some of the victims who report cases of torture and experimentation very akin to MKUltra.
	And the CIA, after admitting that they had participated in the MKUltra program, they never said that they stopped.
	And that's what's deeply concerning to me.
	No, they did say they stopped.
	Burn the files for Richard Helms.
	Have they publicly sworn under oath that they have stopped?
	Yes, during the church committee.
	During the commission?
	It wouldn't make a difference if they did.
	They prorogued it so they could rebrand and relabel it and carry it on.
	I think they were done.
	I don't think they had anywhere else to go with it.
	It was already winding down on its own.
	There's other programs out there that have replaced it over time, like Havana Syndrome.
	Right. For example.
	I mean, MKUltra was kind of played out in of itself.
	They got the information that they needed to move forward.
	By the way, I have a channel called Proven Conspiracies where I do cover MKUltra, Operation Midnight Climax, which was under MKUltra.
	And I noticed the name Proven in the conspiracies.
	I do try to lean into those.
	Like Mockingbird.
	Like Operation Northwoods.
	There's declassified documents.
	You can check behind me.
	It's out there.
	I don't look at MKUltra as a unique, distinct project.
	I just see it as part and parcel of government experimentation on humans and psychological operations.
	It was always an umbrella project.
	That's the thing.
	It was an umbrella project for all these other projects.
	And it was also under a paperclip.
	So there was an umbrella over it, too.
	It's a tapestry or a quilt of madness.
	I mean, until we get rid of FISA courts, though, I'm really reticent to believe anything that our U.S. government has to say or do.
	I think that it's just so objectively unconstitutional, and it's abhorrent.
	So until we get rid of the FISA courts, I'm not going to buy or believe anything else.
	I mean, it's just, it's crazy to me.
	Yeah, I'm just going to stop there.
	Well, hold on now.
	I want to share the wealth, though, because, you know, we have two Canadians here, and you guys had half of MKUltra yourself.
	Yes, we did.
	In Montreal.
	Ian, you're out west.
	I was at the epicenter.
	I had friends.
	At the Allen Memorial.
	When we were growing up, we had an incident and I ended up making friends with people at the Allen.
	That was a mental institution where they carried out MKUltra.
	Or at least where that doctor carried out certain experimentation.
	It has ties to McGill, which is my first alma mater.
	Ewan Cameron.
	Say it again?
	Dr. Ewan Cameron.
	That sounds...
	Ironically, he was the head or the president of the American Psychology Association.
	But Ewan Cameron was out of McGill doing these experiments, if I recall.
	Yeah, I got to see this.
	I'm looking.
	Canadian Encyclopedia, between 57 and 64, psychiatrics experiment were conducted at the Allen Memorial.
	I remember where it was.
	It was right by the Lachine Canal.
	Beautiful. I think it was still used as an institution, still up until this day.
	But I thought they had shut it down.
	I'll double check.
	But yeah, this is a distinct Montreal connection.
	And neither I nor anyone in my family extended had anything to do with it directly or indirectly.
	I don't know.
	You're married to a brain scientist.
	I wonder if some of her research could have...
	No. I'll find out.
	Wow. By the way, here's another example of MKUltra helped present us to certain other people.
	Whitey Bulger.
	He was a victim of MKUltra.
	A lot of people don't realize that.
	When he was in Kentucky, well, Ted Kaczynski, sadly, Ted Kaczynski was a genius professor at Harvard.
	Well, yeah, absolutely.
	Whitey Bulger got it when he was in prison, so it's interesting groups.
	I would argue, too, that what's his name?
	Helter Skelter, help me out.
	Okay, the Manson stuff, I have interviewed Tom O'Neill.
	I know the Tom O'Neill angle.
	I also know the Nick Shrek angle.
	I've interviewed all of these guys.
	I don't know about Jim Jones.
	I think Jim Jones.
	If you go and look at the torture he put his cult adherence to, it's...
	Like playbook.
	Playbook, brainwashing, conditioning.
	He also went to the San Francisco Psychological Institute, the same one where they were doing Midnight Climax and many others.
	He went there for like three weeks before he started his whole mission of bringing people together.
	And all of his rhetoric is right in line with everything that we've seen come out of other victims.
	But yeah, he was definitely an MKUltra.
	Somebody brought us back full circle.
	I think the whole Jim Jones thing was an entire experiment from the CIA.
	Whitey Burgers is now the prosecutor in Karen Reed.
	Shut up!
	Is it true?
	Can we confirm that before we...
	Somebody else posted it earlier.
	I don't know for sure, but somebody can confirm.
	I don't know the lawyer name.
	I'll go look it up right now.
	I was going to say this.
	Oh yeah, if everybody has not seen the movie Black Mass with Johnny Depp playing Whitey Bulger, it's actually a surprisingly phenomenal movie.
	I was not expecting to like it as much as I did.
	Johnny Depp is a talented actor.
	Oh yeah.
	The story is compelling.
	Much better than Leonardo DiCaprio.
	Come at me.
	No, Leonardo DiCaprio is a PDF file.
	Shut up.
	I'm waiting for the audience to come at me.
	I think that Johnny Depp's a superior actor.
	I am not for DiCaprio's lawyers.
	She said it.
	I'm just sitting here.
	In my opinion.
	I think it lets them get of age.
	I mean, I think that...
	What is it?
	I forgot it was Ricky Gervais.
	That was one of the best lines in the world when he said the movie was so long that he outgrew his girlfriend at the time.
	Or she got too old by the end of the movie.
	So yes, he notably does like young women, but I think they hit drinking age before they see him.
	I think he's...
	Danny, what type of law do you do?
	Everything. I just do civil litigation.
	If Leonardo DiCaprio's attorneys want to call me.
	Oh, no, that's not where I was going with that.
	I was going through a question that I had yesterday because I had on...
	Civil lit.
	Okay, so you might not know this.
	Because I had on Misfit Patriot who's going hard against Andrew Tate in terms of speaking of the potato files.
	He's going against him or for him?
	No, no.
	He's like, you know, Andrew Tate's guilty.
	Lock him up.
	And then one thing that came up in the discussion was this law called the Protect Act, which prohibits sex.
	Yeah, which apparently the Senate's good with, but the House can't seem to pass.
	I think it was 100% on the Senate, like 100 votes.
	I've had this argument with a lot of criminal attorneys.
	I know where you're going with this.
	Like I was saying, the age of consent in Britain was 16 or is 16 at the time.
	And he says, well, the Protect Act prohibits...
	Travel for sex for anyone under 18. And then I said, that doesn't make sense that they could prosecute you for something that would be illegal in another country.
	Sorry, that's legal in that country.
	Legal in another country.
	The more that I thought about it, age of consent is a state issue in America, and there are some states where the age of consent is 16. So it doesn't make any sense.
	Many states are 17. Including New York, by the way.
	New York, I think the age of consent is 17, and that's where Epstein...
	And the question is this.
	Misfit says they can prosecute him for that by going to the UK to have sex with a 16-year-old.
	But then, would they be able to interstate prosecute someone who goes from an age of consent 18 to an age of consent 17 state?
	I believe that they can, I thought.
	So they can if it's engaged in human trafficking.
	So if you go under a different statute.
	So if he were just traveling out of state.
	I've read through this.
	I could totally be wrong, okay?
	Ask a criminal defense attorney.
	Not me.
	My understanding, though, of the law and the way it operates, and I focused more on underage marriage, specifically child marriage, child marriages in foreign countries, and then bringing back your bride.
	To the United States.
	That's what's fascinating to me is how that is legal.
	And my understanding is that in many, at least historically, it has been legal.
	So I think it's going to depend on what charges come out of this is my understanding.
	So if he's engaged in human trafficking overseas and he travels to a country to engage in human trafficking overseas, that's where I think they're going to get their hook in.
	My hands are up on this.
	Don't ask me.
	I think this is actually on point.
	One that I can share, the Mann Act, which is what they got Jack Johnson on.
	It is also previously called the White Slave Traffic Act of 1910.
	I think it's still on the books, but essentially it's for people crossing the state lines to have immoral acts.
	So I think that's kind of on point with what you're talking about, David.
	Yeah, no, but my question is more, not even technical, just quite specific.
	If you can prosecute someone who goes to have sex with someone under 18 in a foreign country, would you not be able to do it for someone who does it interstate, goes to a consent state of 18 to one of 16 and then engages in relations?
	Oh, I think you can.
	I think you can.
	Wasn't that what they were threatening with Matt Gaetz?
	No. It was interstate solicitation of prostitution, if I'm not mistaken.
	Okay. Or interstate sex trafficking.
	Trafficking someone from an 18 state to a 16 state.
	And I think that's the hook I'm thinking of.
	I think that applies internationally.
	If a dude's 19, gets a girlfriend in a state that's 16 and then goes to that state.
	If he's able to be prosecuted, then it would answer the question.
	If he's not, then it would really put a wrench in the wheel of the idea of...
	Well, they have Romeo-Juliet laws in a lot of places that cover that, David.
	I think they're literally called that, Romeo-Juliet, where it's like, if you're like 20, like there's a four-year span or something, so a 21-year-old with a 17, or 20 with a 60, or something like that.
	I forget the name of it, but there do seem to be some of those built in.
	Yeah. I think I do know a criminal lawyer out here in Florida, so I'll DM him and see what...
	Ask him.
	I mean, the quicker the Tates are investigated, the happier I'll be.
	I just, I'm so tired of...
	He's gross.
	They're being investigated and they're being prosecuted in Romania.
	We'll see where it goes.
	It's just like, I have the argument with...
	I think it's dropped.
	Everything was dropped in Romania.
	No, no, it wasn't dropped.
	They paused it so they could bonify their charges or add to it.
	It wasn't dropped.
	I made a similar mistake once upon a time.
	Okay. I think it's very weakened because they let him travel.
	Well, that's a conclusion.
	That was a retort I came to.
	He's so guilty that the government of Romania is letting this risk human trafficker travel to America.
	But they postponed the trial.
	They want to revise and add to the charging indictments.
	The Tate haters say it's to make it even stronger.
	The Tate defenders say it's because the case is so weak.
	But one thing is for certain, it's not been dropped entirely.
	It's been basically suspended temporarily so that they can...
	Beef up the allegations.
	I will say this.
	I don't know the level of his guilt, but if I was a parent, I would not encourage my son to emulate Andrew Tate or the Tate brothers.
	Sorry, I find them at a minimum gross.
	They're gross!
	That's my opinion.
	By their own statements, like the statements that Andrew Tate has made publicly, the guy should be in a cage.
	And he's admitted to being a PDF file.
	So on his own statements, according to his own statements, he's like, well, I'm not, you know, that, but also...
	Younger girls are attractive.
	It's like, okay, so then you're attracted to underage girls.
	Just say that.
	They're definitely trying to redefine themselves from all of their prior statements, which are on the internet forever.
	I always say the anecdotes.
	I came across some kids who love Tate, and they start talking, and I say, what the hell?
	Where do you hear this crap?
	And then they're like, the Tate brothers.
	And then I see some clips, and I'm like, this is the most idiotic advice on earth.
	No, no, and idiotic, and then some of the stuff is just outright, like you say, it's not, it's just stupid and repulsive.
	Then the only question is whether or not it's bona fide admissions of criminality or idiots talking idiot trash on the internet, and that's going to be up to the Romanian government to prove.
	He skirts the line really hard, though.
	I've said, I mean, I know how a Canadian court would handle his statements, which is, they would be, you know...
	They'd be like, yeah, maybe you should bring your toothbrush to court.
	As far as what they refer to as the lover boy interpretation of trafficking laws goes, what he's described really sounds like what they consider to be lover boy business method of acquiring women.
	He literally talks it out.
	He says, you do this, you do this.
	And he's also specifically called it the lover boy method.
	Oh, God.
	You know what?
	They're nasty.
	I hope that they both have heart attacks from testosterone use.
	Speaking of testosterone, by the way, at what age do we want to start taking testosterone supplements?
	Go and talk to your...
	Oh, wait.
	Is this a pitch?
	I'm sorry.
	No, it's not.
	Is that an actual question, or are you trying to make money?
	Today's sponsor is by...
	No, I'm actually...
	Ask Joe Rogan.
	So go get tested.
	Here's my recommendation.
	Any man who feels like they're feeling sluggish or starting to lose energy, lose that vibe, if you're waking up consistently, not pitching tents in the morning, then you might want to go and get tested by a doctor.
	Endocrinology is so important both with women and with men.
	And I think...
	One of the things men don't realize is that as your wife's hormones change, you also have changes in your hormones that will reflect it.
	So for example, men tend to cultivate prolactin while their wife is pregnant.
	So while mom is breastfeeding and prolactin in women is good because it helps us breastfeed.
	In men, it causes the dad bod.
	It causes you to gain weight.
	It's what we use to produce milk for women.
	So you'll have an overabundance of prolactin.
	You'll have estrogen.
	Now, keep in mind, when you do go and take...
	This is something I want to warn all men out there.
	Please be aware that when you heighten your testosterone, you are going to see...
	A mirrored height in estrogen.
	So if you start taking testosterone again and feel like you're going through puberty, you're a little emotional, you're a little upset, please keep in mind that you have both levels are increasing.
	And so there's ways to decrease your estrogen level.
	At the same time, there's estrogen blockers.
	As you're increasing your testosterone.
	But these are all things to consider.
	Another thing to consider is that the younger that you start taking testosterone...
	Sorry? I'm sorry, I had to.
	Or don't vote liberal.
	There's a soy boy comment.
	Oh, and soy does impact your ability to create testosterone because it mimics estrogen in the body.
	The more estrogen you're going to have, the less testosterone you're going to have.
	But the opposite is true when you're putting in testosterone.
	You add testosterone, you're adding estrogen.
	If you're adding estrogen, you're decreasing testosterone.
	It's weird.
	I don't get it.
	Go talk to your doctors.
	But this is the last thing I'm going to say.
	If you are younger and you are taking testosterone or steroids, please keep in mind that it may sterilize you.
	It may have a temporal...
	Temporary sterilization effect in that it can affect the mobility of your sperm, the quality of your sperm, and the amount of your sperm.
	So please keep that in mind.
	Now, there are ways to protect that against that by taking things such as HCG at the same time.
	But that's all I'm going to say.
	So to answer your question, yes, go get tested.
	If it even enters your mind, young men out there, older men out there, if it even enters your mind, huh, what are my testosterone levels?
	Just go check.
	Just go check.
	And then if they're slightly below the average range, maybe look at taking natural supplements to increase your tea, exercise, getting good sleep, quitting alcohol, quitting smoking, all of those things help.
	Okay, that's all, Danny.
	This is why you need to subscribe.
	To Layback Law.
	Because we can move all the way from law to a very attractive female instructing testosterone levels for men.
	It truly has range, so you may want to consider subscribing now.
	It's Layback Law, and we have wonderful discussions that are healthy.
	Right on my side of the chat, Danny had paused this a while back.
	It says, Dang, join the stream when pitching tent in the morning as long as the person next to you is not turning into a mountain.
	That's fair.
	Can I read the...
	I gotta read the Biltong over here.
	Looking for some healthy snacks to add to your diet.
	Creatine. BiltongUSA.com Thank you very much, Biltong.
	How do I get on that Biltong track?
	I hear that he's donating everybody.
	He gets hate mail for infiltrating too many podcasts with Super Chats.
	Danny, I did actually read something.
	Where, you know, everybody wakes up, well, men wake up with a boner because of your, and I looked it up, like, why do men wake up with a boner?
	And then the question, the answer was typically because your bladder fills up and it puts pressure on some part of your body that triggers a boner, an erection.
	And it actually said if you don't wake up with a boner, by the way, this is not my problem at all.
	My problem is just general fatigue.
	If you don't wake up with a boner, you might want to go check for ED because you are supposed to because of the pressure of a full bladder.
	Whatever the nerve is, it's supposed to trigger an erection, and if it doesn't, that's not normal.
	So that is the question you can give to your kids when they say...
	YouTube, this is not medical advice.
	This is not medical advice, and it should not be construed as medical advice.
	YouTube, this is specifically medical advice, and we are advising people how to cure cancer and how to...
	I'm supposed to put the testosterone down my pee hole, Danny, if that's what you're saying.
	You're supposed to squirt the methylene blue right in there.
	That was my next question.
	Generalized knowledge out there.
	Just something you guys can go look up.
	Make sure that you...
	This is so important for young men especially.
	Especially if you have received certain medical treatments.
	Make sure that you are getting your prostate examined and that your prostate levels are correct.
	If they are too high and you start taking...
	Testosterone, there can be some very serious adverse side effects such as prostate cancer.
	Nobody wants to see that.
	So go ahead and make sure that you guys go get yourselves checked.
	I will die on the hill of protecting men's sperm.
	Male fertility is decreasing worldwide.
	This is not a joke.
	It is a plague worldwide.
	We're talking to the amounts of 30 to 40% decreases in male fertility over the past 10 years.
	It can be attributed to a lot of things.
	I attribute it to several factors.
	I think plastic plays a huge role in this.
	I also think that...
	Eat like plastic, people.
	That we're giving to men has a huge impact.
	The lifestyle that we expect men to go to work for 8 hours to 12 hours a day and then go out and party and then go out and make their spouse or their significant other happy and then maybe go to sleep after doom scrolling on their phones.
	You have an increase in SSRIs which can also impact those things.
	There's so much going into this.
	And anyone who says, oh, well, men are just lazy, I think that's the worst cop-out you could possibly make.
	I think that there is, if it was just men being lazy, you wouldn't see it happening across the board with different cultures, with different men and different lifestyles.
	And it tends to be happening more so in developed nations.
	So this is a huge pandemic.
	It's really scary.
	It's pandemic levels.
	And how nobody is talking about this is beyond me.
	How nobody's talking about the increase in prostate cancer, nobody's talking about these male issues, is really disturbing to me.
	So, that's all I'm going to say.
	I'll shut up.
	As Danny was trying to say, to quote the great Monty Python comedy troupe, every sperm is sacred.
	So, David, what do you have coming up?
	Did you see the video of a microbots to help motility of lazy sperm?
	We'll end on this.
	What do I have coming up?
	My daughter's in a play, so yesterday for five hours I was taking photographs of their dress rehearsal, and I actually got some really, really good shots.
	Now I've got to go see the play again tonight.
	So there's that.
	Sunday night show's coming up.
	I'm going to go to the car and do a short vlog on the dismissal of the motion to declare the prorogation unlawful.
	I'm going to go do a quickie on that.
	And then what else?
	Next week, it's going to be another whirlwind of insane news.
	Daily shows, 1230.
	Viva Frye.
	Danny, what do you have coming up?
	Well, we didn't get to talk about it.
	The TSA, really quickly, Homeland Security just ended its collective bargaining agreement with the TSA staffers, and I'm so excited.
	Let me read this to you real quickly.
	Nearly 200 TSA officers are paid by the government but work full-time on union matters.
	Okay, so they're double-dipping.
	They're working for the union, likely getting paid by the union, and also are getting paid by the government.
	These people do not retain certification to perform screening functions.
	Additionally, in a recent TSA employee survey, over 60% said poor performers are allowed to stay employed and, not surprisingly, continue to not perform.
	Their capacities as TSA agents.
	So this is like very serious.
	I am so excited.
	It's the first step to getting rid of the TSA.
	The TSA needs to be gone, done with.
	It's state-sanctioned SA.
	I'm tired of it.
	I'm done with it.
	Do not steal my shit anymore.
	Do not touch my body.
	You do not have my consent.
	I have done nothing wrong.
	I am a legal citizen of the United States.
	I have no, unless you have an articulable, reasonable suspicion to sit there and pat me down, do not effing touch my I'm so excited.
	That's the kind of stuff we talk about on our channel.
	Stop taking her bombs away.
	Huh? I said stop taking her bombs away.
	The TSA hasn't really done anything effective, as far as I can tell, in the last ever.
	They're a joke.
	They're a complete joke.
	Once the shoe bomber got it off, then they make you take your shoes off.
	Once the underwear bomber got it off, then they check your undies and, you know, whatever.
	Security theater.
	They fail 95% of, or no, 99% of all of their tests.
	99% they fail to catch.
	Obvious contraband!
	We're talking guns, bombs, knives, you name it, they miss it.
	So, keep going.
	I've only had them find a knife on me once, and I'm never intentionally carrying one through TSA, but on many occasions, I've been like, you know, on the plane, and I'm like, oh, I need to find my earplugs, and I'm like, oh, right, you know, I've got, you know, something like that.
	And I'm like, oh!
	Whoops! Maybe that should have gone into checked baggage, and I guess I'm just going to leave that there.
	But you know what they find every time?
	That they're 100% water bottles.
	They always get the water bottle.
	And I've literally had it where there's a water bottle, and in the same thing, I accidentally left a knife or something, and they're like, well, you can't have this water bottle, and this sails through.
	And I'm going...
	Why are these people here?
	They're just there to take nude pictures of you with the X-ray machine.
	What they call the Rappi scan, but I always just sort of mispronounce intentionally because yeah, I hate the TSA.
	It's such a useless sack of garbage.
	Absolute worthless.
	Absolute unconstitutional.
	POS. Like, under the badge of law.
	It's bullshit.
	And I'm so excited to see it gone.
	Thank God.
	We're covering Karen Reed.
	We're covering whatever else.
	You know, anytime an agency dies, my heart smiles.
	And we celebrate on our channel quite often.
	We talk about these cases.
	I've talked about the TSA.
	I've talked about their statistics.
	You guys think I'm joking.
	Go and look them up yourselves.
	Please do yourselves a favor.
	And I'm just, I'm so pleased to see that first step to the death of the TSA.
	There's one study where they brought through like a hundred simulated explosive devices and the interdiction rate was zero.
	Yep. That's a hundred percent failure rate.
	For those who aren't listening, that's a hundred percent failure rate.
	Yeah. And it's because they're used to looking for water bottles and stuff like that for stupid policies.
	And so they're never actually paying that much attention to look for the stuff that they don't see.
	Like, the rare circumstance of this thing is actually, like...
	And it was stuff like, you know, this is simulated C4 with, like, an actual...
	Some of them were like, this is...
	The explosive is inert, but it looks exactly the same on the thing.
	But they took, like, an actual bomb and put all of the, like, detonator and so forth in it.
	So... And the TSA was like, nope!
	Enjoy your flight.
	Well, and anybody who says, oh, well, what about security?
	How are you going to do security?
	Just so you know, other countries have their own forms of security that don't include the confiscation of your shoes.
	Oh, Canada doesn't make you take your shoes off.
	No one makes you take your shoes off.
	When you go through South Korea, you literally say, I don't want to do a facial scan.
	They say, okay, no problem.
	You go through the process, and here's the process.
	You put your stuff down on the conveyor belt.
	It goes through the x-ray machine.
	You take out your laptop, maybe.
	You walk through a metal detector, and you're done.
	That's it.
	That's it.
	And you know what?
	They don't have the problems we have.
	And here's the thing.
	That can be done.
	That actual security check can be done by the airlines when you're going through the airline gates when you check in.
	That can all be handled by each airline.
	And what's great about that too is you can pay for a better ticket for better service from said airline.
	You don't get the arrogance.
	You don't get the massive tyranny that you see.
	At a micro level every single day.
	So it'd be great to see that transitioned.
	And by the way, you know what the largest security problem is in these airports that have been created by the TSA?
	The damn security line.
	You are a giant sitting soft target.
	And it's like 70 people all waiting.
	It happened in Florida.
	Not recently, but a few years ago where a guy shot up a bunch of people at the security line.
	I'm shocked there's only been one bombing so far.
	I had the thought when I was just packed in like cattle at one security line, it was like literally, and I was just thinking, somebody here, you could take out more people in the security line than you'd take out on the plane.
	Yeah, I don't get it, but you were asking.
	Yeah, what do you have coming up, Ian?
	Sorry, that's all I wanted to say.
	Lots of Karen Reed.
	I'll be talking as well about gun bans and gun restrictions in Canada.
	Probably a little bit more on some of the self-defense cases.
	The situation of what's happened with Peter Cahill is absolutely effed up.
	Peter Cahill is a guy who went out to confront somebody who was stealing his vehicle.
	He testified that he thought the guy was turning with a gun in his hand.
	And amongst other things, he got sentenced to the wrong sentence.
	The judge sentenced him to eight years in court and then later said, oh, by the way, I meant to sentence him to six years.
	I just wrote two alternate versions of my sentencing decision and I read the wrong one.
	And I was initially too embarrassed to correct myself because there was so much media attention there.
	He's pre-writing his decision before he's heard the arguments, which is, I guess, nothing.
	He said he wrote...
	Pre-wrote a decision for six years, for seven years, and for eight years, and he grabbed the wrong one when he read the decision.
	So I'm like, this is messed up.
	I'm still covering Baldoni and Lively on occasion, because that case continues to be...
	It's Hollywood knife fight, and everybody bleeds, so that's fun.
	And nobody cares about anybody.
	Those are nice because it's like, in the great scheme, it's like, who cares?
	One actor, this actor, you know, nobody died.
	The really wonderful thing about that one isn't, like, the thing that just horrifies me most about that one isn't any of the allegations.
	It's the text messages that have been released when everybody still thinks things are good.
	Because you have not encountered a more artificial, narcissistic, you know, forward, like, Every single communication with everyone has to be like non-stop ball washing.
	So anytime anybody says anything, it's like, I love your work so much.
	And also, would you please stop keying my car?
	Kind of like, it's this like weird sub-universe of people who just like, how do these people function in society?
	And the answer is, many of them don't.
	So it's a really interesting world, you know, view into, like, Hollywood and how messed up it is.
	So I'm enjoying that.
	Well, it includes Canadian Ryan Reynolds.
	Can I do two things before we go, actually?
	Wait, wait, Ian, you weren't done.
	Sorry. Oh, no, go ahead.
	It's going to be the sperm.
	I'm going to bring up sperm.
	Oh, I also have a flamethrower video after.
	I will not.
	Hold on, hold on.
	Where is it?
	Is it not here?
	Here it is.
	Look at this.
	Nanobots to help slow sperm.
	This is what you call a desecration of Mother Nature natural evolution.
	Look at this.
	I don't know exactly what the hell I'm looking at here.
	That's a little sperm.
	I thought it was there to help sperm mobility.
	Yeah, look at that.
	So it's going to get the sperm in it and push it into the egg.
	It's like a sperm canoe?
	Yeah. It's like a sperm propeller.
	There's a reason why that sperm is not making it to the egg, but let's go ahead and fix that and look at this.
	And this is hugely helpful because it prevents women from having to go through the process of IVF, which is not easy.
	This is pushing the slow sperm.
	I mean, that's like rewarding the ones that would have naturally not been rewarded.
	Here's the thing.
	So sperm motility and sperm quality are not necessarily synonymous.
	So you can have a bunch of really good holding DNA sperm that would be fine.
	That's why IVF is in play, right?
	So they take less mobile sperm and just implant it right into the egg.
	It's not a guarantee of, oh, well, it wouldn't have survived.
	Obviously, it's not going to survive naturally.
	Obviously, it's not going to get there naturally.
	Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
	But, I mean, the option is either that, having a little...
	A little propeller or doing IVF, which requires egg retrieval from the female, which is really difficult and dangerous and not perfect.
	It's a practice.
	IVF is still a practice and it's not guaranteed.
	But this idea of more birth defects, no.
	I defer to you.
	You definitely are knowledgeable, but I would have been on the boat of...
	A slow sperm is by definition the one that's not supposed to make it.
	The bad sperm?
	Yeah. No, not bad.
	Just not supposed to make it there for whatever the reason.
	So I'm skeptical, but I do defer to you.
	I also just want to bring up one...
	Comment from our locals community, which was from...
	But you're correct.
	I mean, yeah, I mean, you're correct.
	If it's slow, it's not supposed to make it.
	Yeah, and if you make it, make it like, yeah, okay, well, so the winner, not the winner is winning.
	The loser is going to win the race.
	Correct. But the problem is usually it's all losers.
	Right? Like, they're all missing the egg in these scenarios where you would have a propeller on one.
	Sorry, that was my dog.
	That was my dog.
	Quiet. Yep, go ahead.
	Viva, can you get the assemblyman on your show?
	Here's why.
	Remove from California Budget Committee for exposing waste and abuse.
	And I'll get to that to see the veil.
	Because I'm not going to have our locals after party like I typically would because of the shared thing, which I think goes down at the same time.
	Yep. Essentially.
	Everybody, thank you so much.
	Again, wide-ranging discussions.
	You never know what's going to come up on a Friday and how it's going to end.
	But I hope to see you next week.
	If you're on the Viva Fry Channel, consider Subscribe me on Laidback Law.
	You can't make it every Friday, per se, but it will be helpful to have you around and you can get more topics like this.
	And if you had your money on, this was going to end with little robots pushing sperm into eggs.
	Congratulations, you should go buy a lottery ticket.

▲